Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue

[Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:01:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > A work that only allows distribution of patches does not meet DFSG #4.
> > It must also specifically allow the distribution of modified binaries
> > made from those patches.
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but since I can't read binary, I would find
> binary documentation pretty useless.

Let's look at an tiny example of "binary documentation" included in
Debian,[1] /usr/share/doc/svn-buildpackage/HOWTO.pdf:

287 0 obj <<
/Length 738       
/Filter /FlateDecode
>>
stream
x%G�%@}UK%G��%@0^P%G��%@+|$Rql%G�%@t/%G�%@n^_%G��%@Cj%G��%@U%G�Ý?%@^C%G�%@@7%G�%@4%G�%@M%G���%@fL%G�%@^RTq`<%G����%@3^CE%G�%@<^T%G�%@^L%G�%@q%G�%@S%G����%@^Z%G�%@G%G�%@50%G�%@`d%G�%@^{%G�%@^O,D%G�%@`N8Z?@<%G�%@YB%GѺ��ß?%@b%G��%@a^Q%G���%@^L%G��%@Fj]5[8%G�%@Z^\%G�%@,%GÌ?%@G%G�%@-%G��%@^_%G����%@']B!%G��%@^G%G�%@xw%G�%@^D^U&%G��%@^^%G�%@G#^SL9G%G�%@^W%G�%@^Ts^Z%G���%@

[snip]

Seems quite obviously to be "binary documentation". But look what
happens when I use xpdf to read it! Viola! The binary gobbltygook
becomes readable text.

So, while perhaps you do find PDF based documentation to be pretty
useless, it can actually be used by people.

> > The GFDL fails to even do this, since you cannot distribute Opaque
> > version(s) of the work that exclude the invariant section(s).
> 
> Apples and oranges. You can't compare an opaque version of a
> document to a compiled binary. It's the same document whether it's
> in ASCII .txt or MS Word .doc format.

"It's the same program whether it's in C or in m68k machine code."


Don Armstrong

1: Well, one that I actually have installed, anyway.
-- 
<Clint> why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common?
<infinity> It... Doesn't?
<Clint> good point

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu